Feel free to reread the whole article, but just to make sure you read the concluding paragraph in toto, it’s this: “What all this suggests is that the relationship between sports, culture and genetics is much more complex than either liberal antiracists or ‘race realists’ like Entine and Murray will allow. Athletic talent is at least in part inherited, and there are undoubted genetic differences between populations. Nor should we dismiss the possibility that West Africans and Kenyans have a genetic advantage when it comes to sprinting or long distance running. It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, and there is clearly much more to sport than natural ability, but in principle there is no reason to assume that certain populations have physical characteristics more suited to particular athletic activities. But are blacks naturally better athletes than whites? Not necessarily. We should be highly suspicious of any and all attempts to confuse the genetics of populations and the politics of race.”
This is his spin, and not mine, and as I said above, I present it in the interest of fairness, since I spend as much time reading viewpoints opposite mine as I do those which support it.
In general, Malik takes a middle ground that argues that between populations, genetics plays a large and documented role in phenotypic and therefore outcome differences. He argues this is not necessarily a reason to assume any given population has a given advantage.
That is not my reading. He acknowledges phenotypic differences amongst populations, but he’s not convinced they translate as a reason for differences in outcomes. In fact he challenges that connection with counter intuitive examples.
If I’m reading everyone right,
You believe the reason for West African dominance in sprinting is 100% nature.
I believe its somewhat slightly less than that.
Like Malik, DSeid believes nature is a plausible cause but not for 100%
And one more thing. I confidently predict we will never see a white sprinter on the top of the 100m sprint olympic podium again. There is no opportunity for a white to acquire the neccessary gene set.
But West African descended blacks can acquire the genes neccessary for fast swimming and the reason they haven’t yet been seen on the podium yet is that the vast majority just aren’t into it for whatever reason.
Yes CP I read the article and no it does not change my position or, to my read, support yours in any way.
You seem to arguing against a position that no one here at least is taking - a position that you have called an “egalitarian” which you believe posits that all people are literally created equal and there are no differences between different human subpopulations - “genetic equality”. I don’t know if anyone takes that position but if they did I would think them silly indeed. Some of us may believe that the differences are immaterial to issues of public policy, and uninteresting as a matter of science when forcing the sloppy cultural entity of “race” as the divider and sorter - but that is a different position completely.
Your stated reason for why it matters to argue against that position (that no one here has espoused) is that you think that showing that to be wrong would support your belief that “genes are the only contributing reason for the disparity in outcomes at the group level”.
And I gotta tell you, arguing one extreme pole, against an extreme pole that has not been espoused, will do little but polarize those with more nuanced views against your position.
Clearly your extreme position is false. Again there is the current example of the success of Jamaican athletes in sprinting while none of the very elite in that sport call a West African nation as home. If genes were “the only contributing reason for the disparity in outcomes at the group level” then a small smattering of the fastest men alive would call Jamaica home and many more would have citizenship in a West African nation. Another case is one you brought up - basketball used to be dominated by Whites (in fact Jewish Whites in the early days) - now it is dominated by Blacks. Did the gene pool change that quickly??? And if not then why did not Blacks dominate in the early days, since “genes are the only contributing reason for the disparity in outcomes at the group level”?
This thread was opened up about a particular article that supposed a particular explanation. When you react to it being pointed out that this particular article is wrong in its basic assumptions with the statement: “Perhaps they are wrong, but …” and go on to toot your particular political agenda’s horn, you have no soap box to stand on from which to complain about the agenda of others who haven’t posted here. You would have done better to stop before the “but”. This particular study is wrong and not the study to use to make points for your personal political agenda.
My position remains that the group identified as “Black” is, given equal opportunities training education and numbers of subjects, going to very likely produce the sigma outlier elites in any endeavor that has a high reliance on genetic predispositions. And for American Blacks perhaps even more so in athletic fields.
The reason, again, is that the sociocultural group called Black has the most genetic diversity of any racial subpopulation. It is a dang big umbrella.
They have first off the diversity inherent in including all of the lines that remain from the African origin, while other groups primarily consist of smaller gene pools of their founder populations that left Africa.
They also have the mixing in of other genetic heritage lines as those with ancestors up to and very likely much more than 50% non-African tend to get socially classified as “Black” - see Obama and Tiger Woods for trite examples - thus those Neanderthal genes that were picked up when some went out of Africa are covered in the genetic diversity of the broad Black racial group as well, as are some of the genes that changed in various subgroups after the founding events.
As for the last speculation, about American Blacks, well that is based on another thing - American Blacks were mostly the result of West Africans (with that founding populations possible predisposition for speed) and then subject to the Middle Passage, which killed off any who were less than the strongest, and then to slavery, during which owners also destroyed property that was not productive and attempted to have the strongest reproduce more. Simply put in evolutionary terms, for a several generations “fitness” was smarts and strength in a high pressure selection environment.
This speculation is however just that - speculation. If I wanted to support that last bit I’d need to look at some measure of average natural athletic ability (if one existed) and see if American Blacks were indeed superior to some mean of African Blacks. And honestly the question just isn’t that important or interesting to me.
In my mind the means and the variation about the means are among different subpopulations do not meaningfully inform public policy. Equal opportunity is a basic concept.
Flying Dutchman, yes you have my position read correctly. And I think others posting here also would endorse that statement. you with the face for example has explicitly stated that
But as she went on, this study did not make that case. This particular study was crap.
It is annoying to have CP respond to statements like that and those I have made as if we are claiming that all subpopulations are exactly the same in every statistical measure.
You can believe me or you can ask a few white women who have had the experience. And yeah, it’s an experience. In either case, your point is well taken, the idea is pretty anecdotal but I’m certain that a poll between whites and blacks would unequivocally show that blacks have bigger penises than whites. The genes responsible for penis size are homeobox genes. Should be very easy to figure out whether blacks have more expression of these genes than whites.
Why? Blacks having a genetic predisposition for larger penises would further your hypothesis that there are real, genetic differences between ethnic groups. Here’s the deal, CP, have you ever looked at an autopsy report? I mean, they put the brain weight as well as the ethnicity on the report. One could, if you thought there were differences, compare brain weight between ethnicities. I’ll even start you off.
Michael Jackson brain was 1380 grams
Albert Einstein’s brain was 1230 grams
Bruce Lee’s brain was 1575 grams
Marilyn Monroe’s brain was 1440 grams
Ronald Goldman’s brain was 1400 grams
Do you see a trend (other than the average weight being 1400 grams)?
Einstein had a particularly large ratio of glial cells to neurons in part of his brain. So probably had faster processing than the average person.
In terms of brain size averages there was a recent paper on this. (2009). Whole-brain size and general mental ability: A review. International Journal of Neuroscience, 119, 691-731.
No, the controversial issue here is how deep-seated whatever below the neck physical differences that exist are. Most physical traits among humans aren’t so deep-seated. If you have any heritability studies suggesting that muscle structure, bone density etc. are such deep seated characteristics- when there’s plenty of regimens out there to alter such things, and have existed ever since humans realized the benefits of certain exercise and fitness regimens, IE, many thousands of years- I’d love to hear it.
Also, why do you keep using SIRE in place of things like “different ethnic groups?” I know what that means, but what’s the point of that specific label?
Also, what’s the point of this talk about brain size? That stemmed from talk about blacks having better singing ability and bigger penises. The first, I don’t know much about, the second, I know that a major factor in penis size is testosterone levels. This, like all sorts of other traits, has varying environmental and genetic contributions, but it’s not like they’re deep seated.
In regards to brain size being connected with IQ, where did you get those figures, Honesty? There is indeed a correlation between IQ and brain size, but sadly for people like Chen, the very existence of a neurological basis for intelligence doesn’t say anything in the way of it’s heritability, and doesn’t lend much credence to the racial hierarchies of people like Rushton, whom he favorably cites.
I discussed the issue of race and athletics in another thread on this issue.
On another note, I thought blacks averaging denser bones, smaller lungs, and less subcutaneous fat (not that these traits are deep-seated, mind you) were the prime physiological reasons.
There are real, genetic differences among ethnic groups. That’s not a hypothesis; it’s a broadly-accepted fact. I won’t even bother to post cites; there are thousands upon thousands of studies showing genetic differences among populations.
Autopsy brain weights are not necessarily an accurate way to measure cranial capacity, for a variety of measurment and post-mortem reasons. I assume you are aware that only a very ignorant individual would try to make an inference from five isolated brain weights…
I am a vociferous proponent of equal opportunity, but I argue that we must also have race-based affirmative action set-asides to drive diversity and a sense of social justice. Without that, gene prevalence differences among races will continue to drive disparate outcomes. In my field of medicine alone, a shift to “equal opportunity” standards would diminish the field of black candidates even further; in California, Proposition 209 (which permits consideration of equal opportunity but not race) has seriously diminished access to higher education for blacks.
On the “extreme” front, perhaps you would be more comfortable with this wording: “Access to a particular genetic library is the reason for disparate success of blacks in sprinting.” That is to say, because superior genes are required for success, only those with access to those genes will be the most successful, and only those groups which have a disproportionate prevalence for those genes within whatever group is defined will have a disproportionate success rate. An individual without the right genes can be nurtured up the wazoo, and he still won’t be a star sprinter. It is genes and genes alone which drive the disproportionate representation for the group, even though any given individual may be less successful because of crummy nurturing. If the West African group from which the Jamaican sprinters are descended had better nurturing, we’d simply see even more records broken, but you could nurture China till you are blue in the face (and of course, China does) and you’d see still blacks disproportionately represented. Genes.
You are neither understanding my position nor understanding why I think this is important. Let’s start with the case at hand…“black” sprinters dominate sprinting. They dominate it at every level, so that if I were to look across all competitions in the US, from say, high school on up, I’d see a disproportionate representation of blacks.
Now why is that so? The answer is genes. It’s not culture. It’s not nurture. It’s genes. It is true that if the genes are there, a given individual–and by extension, a cohort with a broader prevalence for those genes–will skew toward participation in that sport. In that sense, “culture” may be involved, but the culture is driven by the gene superiority which underpins success for that skillset. Genes are responsible for the disproportionate representation. Period. There isn’t a shred of evidence suggesting that non-black sprinters are uninterested in succeeding at track and field, uninterested in scholarships, or unmotivated to pursue that route.
Next, what is the relationship between those genetic prevalence differences and the group of “race”? In summary, the Self-Identified Ethnic/Race category of “black” contains a subset which has a higher prevalence of genes for sprinting.
Should we care? After all, the category of “race” is fairly loose, and for many individuals, very loose and even at least half cultural (from a genetic standpoint). Mr Obama, for instance is as genetically white as he is black, was raised by a white woman in either a white or foreign culture and yet is widely (and self-) categorized as “black.” So perhaps it should be considered nonsensical to consider a category of race, period. Maybe a better “biological” category is Bigfeet or Smallears, or something.
I’m fine with that approach and take no issue with it, except that people themselves insist on self-categorizing. And if they categorize themselves, all of a sudden it becomes important to accept that genes are the reason those superior athletes are taking their place on the podiums, and if we insist on categorizing the athletes as “black” or “white” or “asian” then the fact that “race” is a loose category does not mean that genes are not the reason for the disparate success of that category. That is the category which contains the subset of athletes with those superior genes.
If Joe Nazi comes trucking along and begins to complain that the system is rigged, that whites and asians have been seriously disadvantaged and discriminated against, and that the disproportionate outcome is a priori evidence of reverse racism, it’s time to educate Joe about the role of genes in superior performances and put his ignorant ass back on the couch until he finds a way to be born with a better gene pool.
Disregarding gene differences, and the role genes play in who we are is the path to a permanently divided society, endlessly bitter over disparate outcomes and forever suspicious of anyone’s success. Until such time as we stop self-categorizing, we will need to accept that if we compare the categories of race–loose as they are–we will find genetic prevalence differences even at that broad of a level. The genetic libraries of “black” and “white” are different enough for certain key genes that we can confidently predict that a winning sprinter will have had genetic access to the SIRE group of “black,” and that the disparate success of blacks in sprinting is entirely due to access to that superior genetic library and not due at all to discrimination or limited opportunity for whites and asians.
Bringing up isolated variables like that does nothing to discount the brain size-IQ connection. Einstein seems to be a favorite of these tired, weak arguments to discount the correlation. For starters, Einstein was old when he died, and in old age, brain size decreases- he also seemed to suffer a peculiar case of benign macrocephaly as a child. Though regardless, his brain size probably wasn’t that big for most of his life.
However, this, once again, does nothing to discount the correlation. For most of humanity, and indeed even suggested by studies on primates as far-reaching as new world primates,(obviously not using IQ tests, but close enough) there’s a correlation between IQ and brain size- .4, or 16% of the variance. A modest one, but it’s the single most visible and replicable aspect of the neurological basis of intelligence.
Back on Einstein, though, his brain was probably just wired in a way that made up for the reduced size. Chen mentioned this, and studies of his brain have found certain areas known to be involved with mathematics to be disproportionately enlarged. I’ve heard of studies on “genius” children who have average sized brains, yet are noted to have proportionally very slow glucose metabolisms- which is also known to be correlated with IQ.
There’s probably a specific model of genetic substrates that accounts for why the correlation isn’t always the same. It could be like how some people can have average sized hearts you have ones that do the work of ones twice the size. They have other factors making up for it.
Regardless, many people seem to interpret the correlation between brain size and IQ as meaning it’s a fixed variable- it shouldn’t be. If you accept environment has any effect on IQ, and IQ is reflective of the workings of the brain- just like anything else that comes from the mind- then wouldn’t this ultimately mean the brain would likewise change?
The most likely pathway would be that alterations in IQ would alter brain growth. There’s few specific case studies of that, due to the lack of knowledge of the correlation and just how hard it would be to measure, but studies of nutritional differences are pretty blatant. Those who suffer severe malnutrition see decreased brain growth- those who are treated for it see increased brain growth. And that’s all correlated with IQ. Plus, the speed and rate of brain growth throughout the lifespan closely parallels the rising heritability of IQ with age- the brain becomes less susceptible to environmental influences as it becomes more mature.
And finally, this issue is poorly applied to racial hierarchies. This is a very lengthy issue, but to sum it up quickly, due to the lack of understanding of how well various measures of brain size correlate with IQ, it’s application to race differences is very spurious. I imagine the genotypic scores are very different in reality compared to what people like Lynn and Rushton propose, whom are virtual heroes to many racialists, and Chen also cites Rushton in this thread- I imagine he cites them quite frequently in his various spammings of discussion boards.
Granted, Lindsay is a nutcase, he accepts Lynn’s figures, and he denies the correlation here- but he details clearly the race differences and how variable they are, and how poorly they match up with the figures of Lynn and Rushton. (granted, these aren’t the most exact representations of these various populations, but it’s noteworthy nonetheless.)
And this Beals data has been a favorite of Rushton- who thinks that, because a meager hierarchy of black-white-east asian exists- this means his surreal evolutionary theories and IQ figures are validated.
Just look at some of these figures- for many parts of SS africa, the cranial capacity is the same as much of europe. And west mexican natives have bigger skulls than most of europe. They’re about the same as the chinese.
Also, in regards to it the heritability of brain size, in the modern first world, it, on average, is quite high- something like .8-.9, I believe. However, small changes in the brain can mean big changes for the mind in general, and considering how modestly correlated brain size is with IQ, this shouldn’t be unexpected.
Your post is completely surreal, though I’ll only focus on your understanding of genetics at the moment. You seem to genuinely believe that environmental differences only exist by way of maximization or depression of a fixed potential, not actually altering the trait. That is completely idiotic. Please tell me why you seem to think, with the sole exceptions of extreme and transient environmental influences, everything is genetic. The entire field of quantitative genetics tells us that isn’t so.
I mean wow, what do you think happens to a person’s physiology who spends a long time working out in the gym? It changes. The genes are genuinely changing. Something you think shouldn’t be happening.
People who act like even physical differences are so deep-seated might as well come out and say body weight is a really deep-seated trait as well.
And it’s nice to see DSeid is able to pick up your extreme pigeonholing of this discourse. Sadly, most people don’t realize how often people in this “debate” are often lumped into extremities by way of your kind of thinking.
No. You’re changing the expression of the genes. Your body is reacting to those pressures by increasing it’s muscle mass and bone density, which would be prompted by a change genetic expression.